ARKANSAS CITIZENS VOW LEGAL CHALLENGE TO STOP INCINERATION
PERMIT; PUSH FOR ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL PLAN AT PINE BLUFF ARSENAL
Groups Also Ask Legislature to Protect Arkansas Families
In response to the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology's (ADPC&E) approval of a permit to construct a chemical weapons incineration facility in Pine Bluff, citizens groups and individuals from across Arkansas have pledged to advance their effort for public health protection through the legal process. The groups will seek to stop the incinerator through a permit appeal and in the Courts if necessary, as they continue supporting safer non-incineration disposal technologies.
After 11 years of review, ADPC&E approved the incinerator permit on January 15, allowing the Army and contractor Raytheon Demilitarization Company to build and operate five incinerators at the Pine Bluff Arsenal to burn deadly nerve and mustard agents. The Arkansas facility will be modeled after trouble- plagued chemical weapons incinerators currently operating in the Pacific and Utah. Two more chemical weapons incinerators are under construction in Oregon and Alabama. With the exception of the Pacific plant, all are being legally challenged by citizens groups in all states.
Although fully supporting the U. S. effort to dispose of the obsolete chemical weapons stockpiles, Arkansas organizations and individuals are challenging the incinerator, contending that its smokestacks will release toxic chemicals, including nerve agent, into the environment, thereby creating an ecological and public health threat. The groups will challenge the permit and also claim the program is in violation of several Federal environmental laws including the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).
Citizens point out that three non-incineration technologies for chemical weapons disposal are now being demonstrated with the results due in April. These technologies could be used in place of an incinerator in Pine Bluff.
Community groups at chemical weapons stockpile sites in Indiana and Maryland successfully stopped incineration and non-incineration technologies are currently being permitted there. Eighty-three percent (83%) of the Arkansas stockpile is identical to that in Maryland, where neutralization and bioremediation will treat that site's agents. "If neutralization has been shown to be safer in destroying the stockpile at Maryland, why should Arkansas be forced to burn its stockpile?, " asked Joe Steward, head of the American Legion Post 126 and the Disabled American Veterans of Pine Buff.
Many of the comments submitted by Arkansas citizens dealt with the public health impacts of chemical weapons incineration. "Although the issues we raised in our comments were directed to the Arkansas agency, the responses from ADPC&E depended on studies and data supplied by the Military, which we find suspect," said Brownie Ledbetter, Director of the Little Rock-based Arkansas Public Policy Panel. "For example, ADPC&E depended entirely on the Military's Health Risk Assessment concerning impacts on the public health from emissions of toxic material from the stacks. We believe these studies omit significant evidence they chose to ignore to create the appearance of being protective of the public," she said.
One of the primary areas of concern raised about burning deadly chemical agents is the impact the incinerator emissions will have on the health of children. The Army's incinerators in the Pacific and Utah routinely release nerve agent, PCBs, dioxins and a host of other known health-damaging chemicals. Arkansas citizens, in their comments, requested a study to be done on the "neurological cognitive impairment of children" from exposure to such materials. ADPC&E responded that it has "no monies available to fund any study on the possible effects of chemical agents on children" and "the funding of the proposed study is not relevant to issuing an air permit."
"It is disheartening for the State of Arkansas to permit such a facility when state officials admittedly don't know how these emissions will affect the health of our children," said Evelyn Yates, a leader of Pine Bluff for Safe Disposal, a group opposed to incineration. "Such a low value has been placed on our children's health and future. To knowingly subject our kids to toxic material without even doing a study to see what the impacts will be is a sad time in our State's history, " she said. Yates said that citizens requested funds from the Military to study the impacts of emissions on childrens' health, but were turned down. "There seems to be plenty of money for the Military to open Public Relations Offices and pay for propaganda about how safe incineration is, but no money to see how our children might be affected. This shows you where their priorities are," she concluded.
The Department of Defense admits that hundreds of unidentified chemicals are being emitted from its existing chemical weapons incinerators. Citizens contend that such chemicals should be considered dangerous unless it can be proven otherwise. ADPC&E admits in its response that "the full identification of every pollutant in the stack gas from the incinerators has not been made."
New information on the toxicity of these nerve agent also raises concerns from Arkansas citizens. A recent National Research Council report stated that many of the Pentagon's "acceptable" chemical agent exposure levels are invalid. Although the report looked only at exposure data for soldiers in the field, North Little Rock attorney, Gregory Ferguson points out, "the same data is being used as a basis for worker and general population exposure levels in the incineration program. People living near an incinerator will not have access to gas masks and moon suits like our troops do."
In their comments to ADPC&E, citizens pointed out that exposure to chemical agents may have contributed to Gulf War Illness. The groups' highlighted a 1998 Congressional Committee Report on Gulf War Illness, which stated, "Exposures to low levels of chemical warfare agents and other toxins can cause delayed, chronic health effects." The report noted that the Pentagon finally admitted to troop exposures only after thousands of Gulf War veterans became ill. Steward said, "Arkansans should not be the next population exposed to these agents, reassured then lied to, only to fall ill later." While ADPC&E's response to such submitted comments was "The alleged cover up by the Army [about chemical agent exposures] is not relevant to the Part B permit."
Sheila Witherington, President of the Arkansas Chapter of Women's Action for New Directions (WAND), said, "We intend to challenge the issuance of this permit through the Administrative Process and the Courts. An active campaign is also underway by the Arkansas Citizens Congress, including more than 50 organizations state-wide, to provide information to the Legislators that will result in protective laws for our families governing the permitting of chemical weapons treatment and disposal in Arkansas." Witherington added, "The number of voting citizens backing this change reaches into the thousands. Let it be known, we are not stupid in Arkansas." Witherington also noted that state legislatures of Maryland, Indiana, Colorado and Kentucky have passed laws placing increased requirements on the Military for chemical weapons incineration permits. Maryland and Indiana are already using alternatives and Colorado and Kentucky are on the way to having alternative technologies -- the demonstrations of which will be completed in April -- deployed in place of incinerators.
"April is just a few months from now, and we would be foolish to be stuck with an incinerator and the emissions created by it while other states are allowed safer, cleaner and more protective approaches, " said Witherington. "WAND and its allies are committed to seeing that Arkansas gets an equal opportunity to use the best technology available. We are confident that this legal challenge will assure us the protection we need for our communities, our environment and our families."
Craig Williams, spokesperson for the Chemical Weapons Working Group (CWWG), a national coalition advocating safe disposal methods, applauded the resolve of the Arkansas groups saying, "The people in Arkansas are standing up against what has proven to be an unacceptable approach to chemical weapons disposal. The CWWG supports the effort to destroy the stockpiles, but not in a manner which will poison communities. We will continue to push for safer disposal technologies, and we support the efforts being undertaken by Arkansans to protect their health."
Williams also noted that the CWWG tried to strike a compromise with Pentagon officials to suspend legal actions at disposal construction sites if the Military would agree to move forward only with the buildings and infrastructural components of the facilities, awaiting the results of the alternative technologies demonstrations before installing the incinerators. "They refused," said Williams. "The Military has shown no willingness to do anything but force its 1982 selected approach on communities. To the Pentagon it's like technology stopped advancing 16 years ago," he said. |
